Author 
Message 
PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.

Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of *relative* motion with
respect to some reference.
I don't know where you got the idea that acceleration is the rate of
change of *absolute* motion.
Quote:  5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto 


Back to top 


xxein@bellsouth.net science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:03 am Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto

xxein: I am glad that you left the specificity of speed of light out.
I already assume A, B, C and D are traveling along a "SRT" straight
line (not GR)..
PD needs to be informed that you meant that all observations are made
by inertial frames (SRT, again) and acceleration is only mentioned as a
way to denote/supply a reason for the difference and changes in an
inertial/constant velocity.
As stated, point 5 is correct, but it comes with baggage. The vector
difference is reduced to a speed. BUT how do you measure this speed?
By lightspeed? Reflection time? The time to get a light response?
TWLS???
The problem arises in that TWLS provides the relationship that you
describe (yes, I understand the whole thing). It would be skewed with
OWLS only in the sense that there is a preferred frame from which to
relate. In SRT, there is no problem with this except for the 2
postulates that dictate "how" to use an equivilant math.
This dictate (no preferrable frame), still allows a preferrable frame
wrt c if there is OWLS. Iow, SRT just tells us what we will measure
 not the physic that supplies the conditions necessary for this
measurement. That is why I harp on subjectivity vs. objectivity. One
is a physic and the other is a "theory of measurement" (subjectively
applied).
TWLS is the principle that SRT is based upon. It is very good because
that is what we effectively measure (from our subjective pov). But it
is not a description of the 'objective' physic that we still must
understand (well, some of us).
SRT works for fish in an inertial river. It ignores the bank. Picture
sound waves that have a definite velocity in the water and you can
still obtain an SRTtype theory with identical math for the subjective
observer (fish), if the bank is ignored. TWLS vs. OWLS. The sound
(in the river flow) has a different relation to the bank, however. It
depends on how fast the river is streaming. Do you think that a
difference in speed of the river flow will NOT affect how fast the
sound wave will travel wrt the bank?
If we were a rock in the river, we can assert that the riverflow will
contain the properties for the sound wave. We can assert that the
riverflow acceleration will change those properties (or the relation
of those measureable properties). We tend to make the assertion that a
bank is not there because we have developed a math that describes what
we observe.
Just because we cannot "see" a bank as fish in water, it does not mean
a bank doesn't exist. If some asteriod came into the gravitational
influence of the Earth on it's eventual path toward the Sun, don't you
think the Earth acted as a bank (reverse perhaps) but still an
influence on the asteriod's path? Did the Earth act as a 'rock' in the
river that diverted the flow of water in the river? What of light in
gravity (sound in a river)?
We know full well that mass bends a lightpath. What is the "overt"
(and objective) mechanism that makes this so? What makes energy flow
so different from a river and its internal (subjective) pov?
Simple. We make theory from less than complete knowlege. Witches will
survive drowning. If you survive, we know you are a witch. Therefor,
we will kill you by other means. No way out if you are suspected. Is
this logic true, or is it what we practice today?
Theories don't have a larger logic. They are assumptions of how things
work. OK? We can get caught up in any belief. And make theory. And
make math along the concept. We bend the math for the belief by
introducing a concept for which the math can apply. Does this assume
that math cannot be applied along a different conceptual belief?
Why is the math for relative velocities not linear? Do we have an
unrecognised factor at work here? If c were a constant OWLS in MY
frame, wouldn't I have to conclude that my frame was preferred to all
others?
Even though G, M, c and R have subjective relationships, they are
profoundly different from any integration of them from current concept.
This not is because G, M, c and R are not described except as a
relationships, it is because we don't know what G, M, c and R are
besides a relationship of our own concept. But this shows the limit to
our awareness of a physic.
I am speaking beyond the comprehension of you or this group, but be
aware that no concept or belief will change the basic physic of this
universe (or beyond). 

Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1153191813.189079.208940@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 
kenseto wrote:
1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D
have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative
motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector
component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual
motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto
xxein: I am glad that you left the specificity of speed of light out.
I already assume A, B, C and D are traveling along a "SRT" straight
line (not GR)..
PD needs to be informed that you meant that all observations are made
by inertial frames (SRT, again) and acceleration is only mentioned as a
way to denote/supply a reason for the difference and changes in an
inertial/constant velocity.
As stated, point 5 is correct, but it comes with baggage. The vector
difference is reduced to a speed. BUT how do you measure this speed?
By lightspeed? Reflection time? The time to get a light response?
TWLS???

The purpose of this thread is not how to measure relative speed. It is to
show that relative motion is derived from individual motion.
However, it is interesting that relative speed between a moving source and
the observer must be measured by assuming that OWLS and TWLS is a constant
c.
Quote:  The problem arises in that TWLS provides the relationship that you
describe (yes, I understand the whole thing). It would be skewed with
OWLS only in the sense that there is a preferred frame from which to
relate. In SRT, there is no problem with this except for the 2
postulates that dictate "how" to use an equivilant math.

There is no problem. The speed of light as measured by all observer is a
constant math ratio as follow:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second comoving with the ruler.
Quote: 
This dictate (no preferrable frame), still allows a preferrable frame
wrt c if there is OWLS.

No it doesn't dictate "no preferred frame".
Quote:  Iow, SRT just tells us what we will measure
 not the physic that supplies the conditions necessary for this
measurement. That is why I harp on subjectivity vs. objectivity. One
is a physic and the other is a "theory of measurement" (subjectively
applied).
TWLS is the principle that SRT is based upon. It is very good because
that is what we effectively measure (from our subjective pov). But it
is not a description of the 'objective' physic that we still must
understand (well, some of us).

IRT contains both subjective and objective physics. A description of IRT is
in the following link page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Quote: 
We know full well that mass bends a lightpath. What is the "overt"
(and objective) mechanism that makes this so?

The mechanism is that light is being transmitteds by a stationary,
structured and elastic ether called the EMatrix and thus it will follow the
geometry (distortion) of the local EMatrix on its way to the detector.
Quote:  What makes energy flow
so different from a river and its internal (subjective) pov?
Simple. We make theory from less than complete knowlege. Witches will
survive drowning. If you survive, we know you are a witch. Therefor,
we will kill you by other means. No way out if you are suspected. Is
this logic true, or is it what we practice today?
Theories don't have a larger logic. They are assumptions of how things
work. OK? We can get caught up in any belief. And make theory. And
make math along the concept. We bend the math for the belief by
introducing a concept for which the math can apply. Does this assume
that math cannot be applied along a different conceptual belief?
Why is the math for relative velocities not linear? Do we have an
unrecognised factor at work here? If c were a constant OWLS in MY
frame, wouldn't I have to conclude that my frame was preferred to all
others?

That's what SR assumes. That's why SR claims that all clocks mvoing wrt you
are running slow. However, this SR assertion makes SR incomplete.In real
life all observers are in a state of absolute motion and thus each observer
will see some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running
fast.
Ken Seto 

Back to top 


PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote: 
The purpose of this thread is not how to measure relative speed. It is to
show that relative motion is derived from individual motion.
However, it is interesting that relative speed between a moving source and
the observer must be measured by assuming that OWLS and TWLS is a constant
c.

There is no "must". The relative speed between a moving source and an
observer can be measured in a number of ways, especially if the source
passes the observer. If the source does not pass the observer, then you
are relying on signals sent from the source to the observer. What the
signal is depends on the nature of the source and what lies in between.
If there is a material medium and some of the signal radiated from the
source is displacement of that medium, then you can use sonic signals
to measure the speed of the source without assuming anything about
light whatsoever. However, if there is no medium between the source and
the observer, then the number of signal options gets reduced. You can
use particles emitted from the source, such as protons and neutrinos,
especially if you know the energy of the protons and neutrinos when
they are emitted from the source. However, if those are scarce or hard
to detect, then you can use an abundant and easily detected particle, a
photon. In this case, you also do not assume anything about c. What you
*do* assume is that if you have two lines narrowly separated like they
are for a sodium source on earth, then these are still associated with
sodium in the source, even though they do not have the same wavelength.
The shift in the wavelength in this case tells you something about the
speed of the source. Handy, yes. Must, no.
PD 

Back to top 


AllYou! science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ssJug.45264$Eh1.45256@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Quote:  1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial
again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and
D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the
individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows:

Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.
Quote:  The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the...........

............change in distance between them per unit time.
Quote:  vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual
motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto



Back to top 


Sam Wormley science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1491

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto

Way simpler than that, Setorelative velocity is just dr/dt, the
derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects. 

Back to top 


Mike1 science forum Guru
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 543

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



PD wrote:
Quote:  kenseto wrote:
1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of *relative* motion with
respect to some reference.

and it is the same in all inertial FoR. Hardly relative.
Quote: 
I don't know where you got the idea that acceleration is the rate of
change of *absolute* motion.

Centripetal acceleration is. Newton showed that to you long time ago.
unless you believe that when you spin your head around it is actually
the whole universe that spins around you, that is unless you are a
waco.
Mike
Quote: 
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto 


Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
Quote:  kenseto wrote:
1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D
have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative
motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector
component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual
motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto
Way simpler than that, Setorelative velocity is just dr/dt, the
derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects.

Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion? 

Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
Quote: 
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:ssJug.45264$Eh1.45256@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial
again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and
D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the
individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows:
Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.

So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion? 

Back to top 


Randy Poe science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.
So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion?

You get a change in relative distance by having relative motion.
 Randy 

Back to top 


PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D
have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative
motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector
component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual
motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto
Way simpler than that, Setorelative velocity is just dr/dt, the
derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects.
Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?

r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
relative to some reference.
PD 

Back to top 


PD science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Hqqvg.42907$FQ1.2954@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D
have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived
from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative
motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector
component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual
motion
along the line joining A and B.
Ken Seto
Way simpler than that, Setorelative velocity is just dr/dt, the
derivative with respect to time of the distance between two objects.
Hey idiot....how do you get dr without individual motion?

r is defined as a distance *relative* to some reference point. The
change dr is the change in that *relative* distance.
There is no such thing as absolute position. There is only position
relative to some reference.
PD 

Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



"Randy Poe" <poespamtrap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 
kenseto wrote:
"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.
So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion?
You get a change in relative distance by having relative motion.

How do you get relative motion without individual motion?
You and I are standing next to each other with no relative motion between
us. How can we have relative motion if one or both of us are moving
individually?? 

Back to top 


Randy Poe science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



kenseto wrote:
Quote:  "Randy Poe" <poespamtrap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.
So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual motion?
You get a change in relative distance by having relative motion.
How do you get relative motion without individual motion?
You and I are standing next to each other with no relative motion between
us. How can we have relative motion

You just said we don't have any relative motion.
Quote:  if one or both of us are moving individually??

If there is any relative motion, then you are in relative motion to
me, and I am to you. It isn't "individual". We are either both in
relative motion with respect to each other, or there is no
relative motion.
 Randy 

Back to top 


kenseto science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Relative motion from individual motion



"Randy Poe" <poespamtrap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153333803.107364.255950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 
kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespamtrap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153327782.517730.42420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:w5WdnZu_FuPdrCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@conversent.net...
Nope. The relative *speed* between any two objects must be
derived
from the change in distance between them per unit time.
So how do you achieve a change in distance without individual
motion?
You get a change in relative distance by having relative motion.
How do you get relative motion without individual motion?
You and I are standing next to each other with no relative motion
between
us. How can we have relative motion
You just said we don't have any relative motion.
if one or both of us are moving individually??
If there is any relative motion, then you are in relative motion to
me, and I am to you. It isn't "individual". We are either both in
relative motion with respect to each other, or there is no
relative motion.0

ROTFLOL.....I demontrated to you that relative motion is born from
individual motion....how can you keep on denying that there is no individual
motion? 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:36 am  All times are GMT

